Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: Anti-tattle tale Amendment

  1. #1

    Default Anti-tattle tale Amendment

    The right of the accused to confront the accuser has been immortalized in the Anglo-American model of law for over 300 years - except on TWC, where we have seen fit to allow for whiny and cowardly accusers to snipe at their rivals while guaranteeing them the safety of anonymity. No more.

    Section 3 Article 1 must be rewritten:

    "If a citizen believes an offense by another citizen is egregious enough to bring before the entire Curia that citizen may initiate an Ostrakon."

    to

    "If a citizen believes an offense by another citizen is egregious enough to bring before the entire Curia that citizen may initiate an Ostrakon. That citizen must initiate an Ostrakon by creating a proposal and presenting his/her argument to the Curia in a separate thread within the Curia. It will not be sufficient for any ostrakon to be pursued anonymously, and in the event any Ostrakon is pursued anonymously, the Consul must dismiss it as a matter of course.(Underlined language added)

    Not only will this proposal create additional accountability, but it will force those bringing these proposals to actually pony up evidence on the front end. Essentially, an Ostrakon should be brought as if any other Curial proposal, and not shrouded in secrecy via a third party.
    Last edited by Pontifex Maximus; February 12, 2021 at 08:59 PM.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Anti-tattle tale Amendment

    I suppose you could use the rough language of the Sixth: "the accused shall enjoy the right to confront his accuser".



  3. #3

    Default Re: Anti-tattle tale Amendment

    I enjoy that as strict language - but the suggested language is stricter. I also suggest additional procedural language absent mere accusatorial language - see the original post.
    Last edited by Pontifex Maximus; February 12, 2021 at 09:46 PM.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Anti-tattle tale Amendment

    While any accusation should definitely not be made anonymously it should also be highlighted that the entirety of the Ostrakon discussion matters, not just the accuser's post. The accuser doesn't own the process. Hence, I understand why some might want to keep it anonymous to avoid it getting personal from the get go.
    The Armenian Issue

  5. #5

    Default Re: Anti-tattle tale Amendment

    So yes, but no?

  6. #6

    Default Re: Anti-tattle tale Amendment

    Yes, in principle, but no, because it doesn't really accomplish much and comes from the wrong reasons.
    The Armenian Issue

  7. #7
    Adamat's Avatar Invertebrate
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Duchy of Dutchland
    Posts
    11,637

    Default Re: Anti-tattle tale Amendment

    Come on guys ostraka are very srs business. We should start by replacing the Constitution with English Common Law and work from there to ensure everyone is properly protected by the law.
    #JusticeForCookie #JusticeForCal #JusticeForAkar #JusticeForAthelchan

  8. #8
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,363

    Default Re: Anti-tattle tale Amendment

    I propose we make it a requirement that the queen officiate every curial procedure. In absentia the proceedings shall be held by the majority whip
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  9. #9

    Default Re: Anti-tattle tale Amendment

    Can we all agree anyone bringing an ostrakon should be known? No anonymity?

  10. #10
    Hader's Avatar Things are very seldom what they seem. In my experience, they’re usually a damn sight worse.
    Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    13,192
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Anti-tattle tale Amendment

    And why should anonymity matter? You confront your accuser in IRL court because that's potentially got some serious consequences for one person or the other, usually both. But we're an internet forum.

    If knowing the accuser is something that is consistently going to change how one would defend themselves against an ostrakon, then the problem is not with the anonymity of it in the first place.

    I don't see this accomplishing what you think it might. Or anything positive, at that.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Anti-tattle tale Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Adamat View Post
    Come on guys ostraka are very srs business. We should start by replacing the Constitution with English Common Law and work from there to ensure everyone is properly protected by the law.
    Go tell that to the American colonist!


    Anyway, it makes more sense the accuser is known. I also think the accuser and the accused should not be apart of the discussion. The accused made their points and the accused had their defense. Why bother with writing an argument and a defense if they are going to argue back and forth.

    I guess only in the Curia could we get rid of citizen referrals for pettiness and then create a system where the stakes are higher with greater abuse is possible. Have citizens shown that they are the "pillars" of the site they claim to be to warrant such trust and faith? If faith and trust is true, then any citizen bringing their concern for the integrity of the honor is being questioned b the actions of another, then such acts should considered noble and necessary. However, it is not such a case. Such individuals are as equal a scoundrel" as those accused of such distasteful action. The true disturbing aspect of this proposal isn't what it addresses, but the very existence of the "proposal."

    To agree to the proposal would undermine the nature f our existence while opposing it will perpetuate the ills of the Curia.

  12. #12
    Lifthrasir's Avatar "Capre" Dunkerquois
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    City of Jan Baert
    Posts
    13,950
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: Anti-tattle tale Amendment

    Don't you think that if the accuser is known then the Ostrakon becomes just a reputation contest between both, the accuser and the accused?
    There are enough "clans" inside the Curia. No need to escalade that IMO. And that's what this possible proposal may achieve.
    Last edited by Lifthrasir; February 14, 2021 at 01:10 AM.
    Under the patronage of Flinn, proud patron of Jadli, from the Heresy Vault of the Imperial House of Hader

  13. #13

    Default Re: Anti-tattle tale Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Hader View Post
    And why should anonymity matter? You confront your accuser in IRL court because that's potentially got some serious consequences for one person or the other, usually both. But we're an internet forum.
    Weak argument. How less seriously do you take TWC? Let us know.

    If knowing the accuser is something that is consistently going to change how one would defend themselves against an ostrakon, then the problem is not with the anonymity of it in the first place.
    Yes, as demonstrated by the last Ostra, which was a completely superfluous circus. In fact it was a main defense.

    I don't see this accomplishing what you think it might. Or anything positive, at that.
    Please explain how anonymous Ostras accomplish anything less than pathetic sniping. Why are you in favor of anonymous ostrakons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lifthrasir View Post
    Don't you think that if the accuser is known then the Ostrakon becomes just a reputation contest between both, the accuser and the accused?
    Why should the accused be the one prejudiced? Why shouldn't the accused be able to confront the accuser and raise defenses?

    There are enough "clans" inside the Curia. No need to escalade that IMO. And that's what this possible proposal may achieve.
    So you even acknowledge there may be factions that raise ostrakons based on nothing more than "clan" loyalty. And somehow you don't think evidence of such is reasonable to be raised in a defense?

    ----

    Accusers should not be anonymous. Explain why this is wrong.
    Last edited by Pontifex Maximus; February 14, 2021 at 05:32 PM.

  14. #14
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,363

    Default Re: Anti-tattle tale Amendment

    Because it allows vengeance squads to jump on the accuser, because it allows for frivolous counter-ostrakons and promotes a culture of "snitches get stitches an eye for an eye", because the ideological warriors (on both sides) would swarm in to defame the person submitting the ostrakon if the target was one of their friends and the discussion would veer towards the person of the accuser instead of the person of the accused.

    Not to mention that it would make popular citizens virtually immune as nobody would have the courage to face the public reaction - see what happened to Diamat when he ostrakoned Ishan.
    Last edited by Sir Adrian; February 14, 2021 at 06:24 PM.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  15. #15
    Hader's Avatar Things are very seldom what they seem. In my experience, they’re usually a damn sight worse.
    Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    13,192
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Anti-tattle tale Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus View Post
    Weak argument. How less seriously do you take TWC? Let us know.
    That's the kind of discussion we're going to invite? I mean I can do that.

    You're OP is weak. Prove me wrong.




    I think you're on to something, I should do that more often, that's much easier than almost anything else beyond not posting in the first place.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus View Post
    Weak argument. How less seriously do you take TWC? Let us know.



    Yes, as demonstrated by the last Ostra, which was a completely superfluous circus. In fact it was a main defense.



    Please explain how anonymous Ostras accomplish anything less than pathetic sniping. Why are you in favor of anonymous ostrakons

    ----

    Accusers should not be anonymous. Explain why this is wrong.
    So are we saying that the content of an ostrakan does not matter really because of its anonymity? That because it is "pathetic sniping" it doesn't matter how well the content may be presented or not?

    Just because I do not support your reasoning does not make me automatically in favor of the opposite of what you intend to accomplish. Anonymous ostrakans are how it is. Making that not how it is, and just simply that, I do not see as making a significant improvement in the process one way or another. I am not convinced it is an important factor in the process. And I'm not arguing for or against it either way much anyways. I'd likely abstain were this in a vote.

    I'm not even sold on ostrakans being entirely necessary, and I still have a preference for some version of the old referrals system, but as ostrakans stand now, I'm not seeing how this change is going to make a significant difference to the process. At best it may help an accuser bring forth a more complete case, or even failing that, at least encourage a more active participation in the case, but removing the anonymity does not remove the potential of animosity between accuser and accused simply by being public with it. In fact one may argue that is more damaging in the end than the process is in itself.

    We've been through how many iterations of ostrakans, referrals, and combinations of them by now? And we're down to the probably most barebones it has been overall, and removing anonymity is going to be the holy grail change to this all? Again, I am not convinced.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Anti-tattle tale Amendment

    It probably should be noted that the Ostrakon is not entirely anonymous. The Consul must determine if it is deserving of discussion.
    If a citizen believes an offense by another citizen is egregious enough to bring before the entire Curia that citizen may initiate an Ostrakon.1
    A citizen initiates an ostrakon by making a case via private message to the Consul, who determines if an ostrakon has merit. If an ostrakon has merit:
    The Consul thus agrees with the citizens petition that the Ostrakon has "merit."

    Personally, I think a ostrakon should only kick in when a behavior because egregious (moderation/ Curial warnings) that the Consul feel that an Ostrakon is merited.

    Citizens should be able to "police" other citizens however. I believe a "Censure" would be the most appropriate action. The nature of the "censure" is a question of debate. It could be a probation period or a Curial warning in which suspension of a badge and rights are restricted for a time period. A violation of the probation would either a violation resulting in a moderation infraction or a Curial warning. Of course this is just another version of the referral system, but so is the Ostrakon proceedings.

    My personal opinion the QP should only be visible to citizens. I do not find it beneficial to have it publicly viewed.

    If popularity is an issue for anything, then the system fails regardless of what you do.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Anti-tattle tale Amendment

    The real questions is: what would it accomplish if the accuser was known?
    The Armenian Issue

  18. #18
    Lifthrasir's Avatar "Capre" Dunkerquois
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    City of Jan Baert
    Posts
    13,950
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: Anti-tattle tale Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus View Post
    Why should the accused be the one prejudiced? Why shouldn't the accused be able to confront the accuser and raise defenses?
    You shoulds have more trust in this institution and in the Consul. If the ostrakon is considered frivolous, then it won't even go any further and nobody will be armed.
    If the ostrakon goes further, that means there's some evidence/material for it. Then Citizens can discuss and should decide with impartiality, based on facts.
    Finally, to be honest, if the acuser doesn't want any prejudice, he just need to respect others and rules. That would be a good start to avoid an ostrakon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus View Post
    So you even acknowledge there may be factions that raise ostrakons based on nothing more than "clan" loyalty. And somehow you don't think evidence of such is reasonable to be raised in a defense?
    Come on! that's a public secret. Everybody knows that, citizens and non-citizens alike. And I'm not talking about ostrakon but about the Curia as a whole.
    If a citizen is under an "unjustified" ostrakon, it shouldn't be that complicated to provide evidences of his "innocence", should the accuser being anonymous or not. As said above, the judgement has to be made on facts, regardless of the accuser and the accused. So yes, it requiers a bit of brain gymnastic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus View Post
    Accusers should not be anonymous. Explain why this is wrong.

    Already did in my previous post and Sir Adrian did it also with even more details. Now, explain how the contrary would improve the process?
    Under the patronage of Flinn, proud patron of Jadli, from the Heresy Vault of the Imperial House of Hader

  19. #19

    Default Re: Anti-tattle tale Amendment

    When y'all ask for "evidence" what exactly are you asking for. In the OP he explained in common law, the accused has the right to confront their accuser.

    Lift ironically you actually provided the best counter argument for transparency in the system. Adrian stated that if the accuser is known then the process will not work because of popularity. But you stated the process does work because evidence of improper behavior would ultimately have to be presented.

    Anyway, the fact that the system allows for anonymity is itself disconcerting. In an ideal system, citizens would report inappropriate behavior and the Curia would act accordingly. As noted by another, there is a basic lack of trut and consistency of what constitutes a higher standard. Until that is resolves, any system is doomed to fail. Citizenship should be exemplary in action and mind. I don't think this has been achieve or at the very least, it isn't believed to be achieved.

    The Curia reminds me of two White Soc (baseball) commentators (DJ and Hawk) they would "talk" about hitting, but they actually never talk about hitting. We talk about higher standards, but we never actually discuss it at all.

  20. #20
    Flinn's Avatar His Dudeness of TWC
    Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    20,306
    Blog Entries
    46

    Default Re: Anti-tattle tale Amendment

    For what is worth...

    Since I already openly told that I believe the Ostraka to be noneffective and only resolving around two (or more) different moral interpretations opposing without any real base to judge upon (with regards to standard, I mean), I can as well say that knowing who the accuser is, would be fine.

    I mean, if that's just a popularity contest when it actually comes to its basic elements, then let's make this a full contest: "I'm the accuser, I believe that these are the standards we are called to uphold and I think that you, the Ostrakoned, haven't done so, so let's the Curia decide if I'm right, or if you are". It really boils down to this, opposing views.

    If anything knowing who the accuser is will make the Ostrakon more likely to be voted in favor, and not the contrary. And will also make it less likely that an Ostrakon will be thrown in based on less than very solid accusations and evidences.. just like when someone bothers to write up an introduction letter and lurk for the contributions of a member to be sumbitted for citizenship, so they should be spending same amount of time and efforts when they want someone to get stripped of their citizenship.

    Either you're sponsoring a member for citizenship or ostrakoning another one to have them stripped, put your face, your time and you efforts in such... if you don't want to do so, you'd better not to get mix with such at all.
    Under the patronage of Finlander, patron of Lugotorix & Lifthrasir & joerock22 & Socrates1984 & Kilo11 & Vladyvid & Dick Cheney & phazer & Jake Armitage & webba 84 of the Imperial House of Hader

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •